Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article Nicola Scafetta was hit with a AfD on March 25. The votes have been overwhelming to keep the article. It is now April 10, so this has gone on far more than one week but there is still no resolution. What can Wikipedia editors do to bring about resolution? This article could be improved if it addressed this important question. RonCram (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on my experience, when there is no resolution after a period of time after it was AfD-tagged, the article is will always be kept. Of course editors should always try to address the concerns listed on the cause it was AfD-ed (e.g. add citations etc) Chongkian (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOT is a policy, not a guideline as this page implies. I think therefore it should be listed in the same paragraph as the other policies, not alongside guidelines.--greenrd (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• !Keep means that the user thinks all the articles in a batch nomination deletion should not be deleted. This is a request that a renomination be divided into smaller nominations with an common issue that predominates over all other issues. He or she may state reasons, citing WP:TRAINWRECK or other reasons, and should not simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "!Keep" without reasons or further comment is discouraged.

The above paragraph is a vote possibility that I would like to add to the Recommendations and outcomes section of the Project Guide to deletion. Please comment. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"!Keep" – meaning "not Keep" – doesn't make sense. Recommendations like "Procedural keep" and "Renominate individually" are more easily understood. WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes covers the general recommendations: for example, note the absence of both Speedy delete and Speedy keep. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Batch nomination is an nomination of more than a few articles in a single nomination, having a common issue that predominates over all other issues, and an expectation that the predominate issue will lead to consensus on a common outcome (e.g. delete).

The above paragraph is a term I would like to add to the Shorthands section of the Project Guide to deletion. Please comment. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that WP:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion should be edited to address any shortcomings. Batching or bundling mostly concerns the nominator, not the participants. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the values ​​I've done that Ahad Azam, Niv Antman and Eli Elbaz are normal entries like everyone else and not have to delete them. Take for example the values ​​of Shadi Shaban and Eran Rozenbom that did not erase them and no one has these values ​​discussion. So please do not put the values ​​I presented at the beginning. (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just need to delete the deletion notice for 5 minutes while I show the entire class my progress. I've copied and pasted the notice into a word document and will put it back after I show my article (I'm in class right now.)Chalbeis (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean, but this looks like you might be editing real Wikipedia articles just to demonstrate something. This does not sound like a good idea to me, unless you are doing it in the Wikipedia:Sandbox which is a place designed for experimenting. FrankSier (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I edited wikipedia not frequently and anonymously for a while. I learned of page deletions and wanted to nominate a page for deletion, so I created an account and nominated it. Then I was accused of being a different user the person who was the only editor to the page had problems with and was repeatedly harassed by several users. Is there a better way around this? What did I do wrong? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I need help getting the deletion notice on James Berardinelli to direct to a new page for a second discussion, rather than the locked page for the first discussion. Thanks much. Rpundurs (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I've placed a boilerplate AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli (2nd nomination), using your comment from the article's talk page. If you'd like to expand or clarify that rationale, feel free. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

After much reading, I believe that deletion discussions should generally be closed by uninvolved administrators, rather than mere editors. If this is true, then I suggest that this be stated more clearly; it took me a fair amount of reading before I discovered that closure should not be done by someone involved in the discussion, let alone (usually) by non-admins. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

How many times can the same editor reasonably propose the same article for deletion on the same grounds, before they're basically just deemed to be acting in bad faith? Does wanting an article to be deleted because you don't like its content run counter to WP:NEUTRAL--feline1 (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally I think it depends on the amount of time that has elapsed. Some articles have been nominated 5 times and finally gets deleted on the sixth attempt, but each nomination may have been a year apart, by a different editor each time, and it may genuinely have been a borderline case. If someone nominates an AfD right after a closed discussion, then they usually get shut out right away. CorporateM (Talk) 23:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we get something like WP:BURDEN section added to specifically state the burden is on those who want to keep the article, and not those who want to delete it? I recently had encounters with some editors who, over and over, insisted the article had sources necessary to meet WP:GNG, yet refused to link them; they argued "all if you have to do is search" or posted links to generic search results (eg "here are the references") as evidence of notability. Editor insisted that WP:BURDEN did not apply to AfD but only to content within an article, and that the pro-deleters were the ones with the burden of proving subject was not notable. It seems the section in the AfD guide that says "merely claiming sources exist is not a good tactic" is not specific enough for some people. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Hm, doesn't WP:BURDEN pretty much extend to WP:GNG? I mean, if there are no sources to cover the article content, the unreferenced content can be deleted, and having an empty article makes no sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic:, you would think that is obvious but no, someone has claimed it doesn't cover AfD. His argument is that the topic of the article is not the same as the content; therefore they don't have to supply sources because WP:BURDEN doesn't apply.... —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion there is far to many comments with "keep" !votes that there are sources "out there" "somewhere in the universe" so the article MUST be kept. You can start a RFC or another relevant place, but a reply to that after a search has not produced sources on an article good enough, not primary, trivial, or passing mention would be something like:

• Comments (or Reply: My search did not produce reliable independant sources to verify notability. If you are comfortable with the inadequate sources on the article and no other editor wishes to add any here or on the article then consensus can determine the out-come. Good luck, (signed) --- Otr500 (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to nominate an article for its deletion to be discussed, and as I go round and round in circles trying to figure out how to do it, this page comes up frequently. It starts reasonably:

Deletion of a Wikipedia page removes the complete page (and all previous versions) from public view.

Well, duh.

Deletion happens when a page is unsuitable, unhelpful, or does not meet the required criteria.

Ok.

Two further deletion processes exist

This is remarkably unhelpful. I know that there are three (or according to some pages, four) possible processes. They include

1. Speedy Deletion
2. Proposed Deletion
3. Deletion Discussion

and this page says that there are "two others". But it does not say which of the three (or four) this page is about. I think it is about the process that involves discussion, but it would be very helpful if it actually said so in the first paragraph. (I note that the second paragraph contradicts the first, and says it is about "the processes".) Maproom (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed some closers have a habit of simply typing "speedied" when closing: [1], [2] and [3] just for example. The bot tracking AfD results is understandably confused by this, as it can't determine whether it was a speedy keep or a speedy delete. Such a result is listed as UNDETERMINED.

It might be thus necessary to clearly and in strong words instruct closers to define which kind of speedy, if they are closing as some sort of speedy. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on my experience, I find that this guideline does not sufficiently discourage the misrepresentation of policies and guidelines in deletion discussions; editors often assert that WP:GNG and other guidelines say things that they simply do not say. We allow a wide range of arguments in these discussions—this essay documents some of the less effective ones—but arguments that misstate policy or guidelines are uniquely disruptive, and this guideline should do more to discourage them. I propose adding the following text to the "Discussion" section:

If, in a deletion discussion, you refer to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, you are responsible for making a good faith effort to represent those policies or guidelines accurately. Policies and guidelines reflect widespread community consensus. If you disagree with a guideline, you should raise your concern on the guideline's talk page; contradicting or misrepresenting policies and guidelines in deletion discussions is disruptive of the discussion process.

—swpb^T 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

After nine days without comment, I am adding this text to the guide under WP:BOLD. —swpb^T 17:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The actress meets the criteria of notoriety. I've added reliable sources of newspapers and magazines, So I do not consider it fair to delete the page. I ask you to remove the AFD requests on the page. Mitofire (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Mitofire Mitofire (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have never nominated a page for deletion before but I think this is a candidate. Ali Shokri does not appear to be a notable photographer to me. I wanted to ask here if I'm mistaken before I nominate. In addition, it appears that the photographer himself was responsible for almost the entire article. I tried to clean it up and remove the promotional material, but there's not much left. What do you think? Nominate for deletion or no? Dennis Osmosis (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like someone moved it to Draft:Ali Shokri so I guess that means the point is moot. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been around for years, but I've just done my first ever AfD close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Dinamo Sukhum, just wanted someone to confirm I've done it all okay and haven't missed anything! Govvy (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record, section heading was moved in Special:Diff/1016078477. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried to ad an afd to the list here:[4] but it doesn't show up in the log, what am I doing wrong? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The corresponding article has been deleted, see [5]. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)